Degrees

[french frank]

ff I was being unclear. My implication was that students working to earn money were less likely to achieve a First. Will try to be clearer next time.

No, you were quite clear. I was simply musing that that fact - and the wider university intake - ought, logically, to result in lower grades. So the puzzle of the increase is even greater!

Interesting to hear something of the finals process from the point of view of the examiners. Perhaps that system has changed now.

I'm sure it's changed since my day. It evolved, for instance, from having lecturers setting and marking their own questions, and giving marks like 63, 64, 67 (as if one could really differentiate between two essays by one percentage point!) to having examiners think in terms of grade first, then a corresponding mark; and having two specialist markers, and discussions about every question where there was a significant difference of opinion. Who knows? They could be back to single marking and precise percentage marks again Or multiple choice, machine marked …

And in my day students did not appeal against the grades they were awarded

[antongould]

Southampton in the late 1960s: to my recollection, the great majority of candidates were awarded a 2.1 or a 'Desmond'. There were very few Firsts.

Lanchester Poly in the early seventies - 50 on course no firsts and few Desmonds but we were probably thick .....

[french frank]

Lanchester Poly in the early seventies - 50 on course no firsts and few Desmonds but we were probably thick .....

When I was an undergraduate the Desmond (as we did not call it back then) was regarded as the 'average' degree. This average or 'good average' apparently moved up to 2.1 at some point.

Another point I thought of, as a marker we were looking for particular signs of 'quality' in a student in order to award a first. Working hard and 'knowing the answers' might get you a good 2.1. But the implication of a first was that it could take you on to a scholarship and a PhD or Masters (rather than a job at the BBC ). There had to be signs of original thinking, intelligent use of peripheral reading and wider knowledge. Perhaps that's what is no longer required?

[vinteuil]

And in my day students did not appeal against the grades they were awarded

... I think it was HDF Kitto, Professor of Greek at Bristol, who published the results for his students several days in advance of the examinations, with the terse comment that 'any student who disagrees with the result can sit the examination'.

.

[french frank]

... I think it was HDF Kitto, Professor of Greek at Bristol, who published the results for his students several days in advance of the examinations, with the terse comment that 'any student who disagrees with the result can sit the examination'.

.

There is an element of authenticity in that. Most teachers had a rough expectation of what their students might get, though once the marking was down to individual question level, with the degree decided on the collation of all information, there was little chance of prejudice affecting the final result. I'm not speaking for Prof. Kitto, however!

[Stanfordian]

I heard on the news today (or somewhere) that one-quarter of university degrees are now awarded with first class honours. What???
Any views?

One quarter of all degree passes being firsts is remarkable! It does make one wonder about comparable standards to past decades.

Do people actually ask whatever of degree one has achieved? During my working life it was a subject never discussed and I was never ever asked what my pass grade was. Maybe it's different in academia?

[antongould]

One quartet of all degree passes being firsts is remarkable! It does make one wonder about comparable standards to past decades.

Do people actually ask whatever of degree one has achieved? During my working life it was subject never discussed and I was never ever asked what my pass grade was. Maybe it's different in academia?

My, hopefully untypical, final employer would only interview people for its Graduate Scheme if they had a 2.1 or above ...... Irrespective of the subject or subject studied .....

[Old Grumpy]

When I was an undergraduate the Desmond (as we did not call it back then) was regarded as the 'average' degree. This average or 'good average' apparently moved up to 2.1 at some point.

Another point I thought of, as a marker we were looking for particular signs of 'quality' in a student in order to award a first. Working hard and 'knowing the answers' might get you a good 2.1. But the implication of a first was that it could take you on to a scholarship and a PhD or Masters (rather than a job at the BBC ). There had to be signs of original thinking, intelligent use of peripheral reading and wider knowledge. Perhaps that's what is no longer required?

"Desmond" - just got it (Thanks FF).

OG

[antongould]

Lanchester Poly in the early seventies - 50 on course no firsts and few Desmonds but we were probably thick .....

Like OG - to prove we were indeed thick - I have just got the Desmond ... so we had a few 2.1s and the rest Desmonds and below ....

[vinteuil]

.

... happily, in my day the university hadn't dreamt of distinguishing between upper and lower seconds: a very few got firsts (an exceptional few got 'congratulatory firsts' and 'formal firsts'), almost everyone got seconds, a few got thirds. I think it was still possible to get a fourth, but I don't think anyone did in my subject / year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_undergraduate_degree_classification

.

[Dave2002]

My, hopefully untypical, final employer would only interview people for its Graduate Scheme if they had a 2.1 or above ...... Irrespective of the subject or subject studied .....

I once went to interview people in the technical department at the Bank of England. They would only take students who had gained a first. Nothing particularly wrong with that, except that they would not take someone who had a high 2.1 in computing or a subject related to the actual work being done, yet they would take someone with a first in ancient Greek. Of course some people with very good degrees in ancient Greek or similar subjects are also very technically able, but some are not. That might not have been their only selection criterion though - which would make more sense. The 1st class degree may have been necessary, but not sufficient.

[LMcD]

One quartet of all degree passes being firsts is remarkable! It does make one wonder about comparable standards to past decades.

Do people actually ask whatever of degree one has achieved? During my working life it was subject never discussed and I was never ever asked what my pass grade was. Maybe it's different in academia?

Same here!

[gradus]

Firsts from Oxbridge were what was sought when recruiting and there was no great difficulty in finding them - young qualified accountants wanting to get into corporate finance in the nineties. I don't know if people with lower degree classesor from elsewhere would have succeeded as they didn't get past first base. Generally speaking the selection system produced the required result.

[oddoneout]

One quartet of all degree passes being firsts is remarkable! It does make one wonder about comparable standards to past decades.
Do people actually ask whatever of degree one has achieved? During my working life it was subject never discussed and I was never ever asked what my pass grade was. Maybe it's different in academia?

Unfortunately it would seem to matter now. The majority of graduate employers will apparently only be interested in 2:1 or above - which could possibly explain the way the proportion of grades has changed over the years....
I looked at my year's results - 1978. 37 honours graduates(the lad who just got a pass degree didn't appear on the results sheet sent out): 2 Firsts,9 Upper Second, 22 Lower Second, 4 Third. Almost 40 years later same course, information says 5% Firsts, 70% Upper Second 25% Lower Second.
My son graduated from the same establishment(although a very different subject) in 2006 and was not convinced that his First was the the equivalent of a First awarded in my day, despite the Uni still being highly placed in league tables. Comparisons are difficult when not only are two different exam schemes involved(modular/finals) but also the content of a course has changed, but knowing what I do about GCSE and A level grades(as a former High School governor and also having taken French at both levels as a mature student) and bearing in mind the competition culture of today's Universities, I cannot believe that there is no grade inflation at all in the results we see today.

[Belgrove]

Nowadays students receive a transcript of their academic achievement, which is a more refined and quantitative gauge of ability than the coarse grained degree classification. A First is automatically awarded for an average of 70 or more. In recent years, almost across the entire sector, the border-line for a First has moved to 68, whereupon an algorithm is initiated that determines whether the candidate is promoted. As for interpreting these metrics, these days I would not take on anyone for doctoral study with anything less than 85. In my experience, the qualities for independent thought, technical ability and creativity (in an academic context) are unlikely to be found with someone with a border-line First.